TIME’s Kate Pickert has the audio of Alaska Governor Sean Parnell’s pronouncement that he would not accept federal funds to implement the exchanges in the Affordable Care Act, citing a district court ruling in Florida which found the individual mandate unconstitutional and invalidated the entire law. Here is the relevant portion:

Seven state legislators who support the federal mandated health insurance have urged me to apply for federal funds to establish a state health insurance exchange in conformance with the new federal health care law. Never mind according to these lawmakers the Florida judge held that health care law unconstitutional and stopped its implementation here. These lawmakers, three of whom are lawyers and know better, urged me to violate – I’m a lawyer to so I’m not going to laugh [crowd laughing]. Huh, I’m a recovering one [crowd laughing]. What these three lawmakers, plus the four others, urged me to violate the court ruling, which is effectively an injunction halting the implementation of the federal health care legislation. I of course will not do so. [...]

The result, Alaska now swims freer of federal entanglement then these other states. These other states are now trying to find out what to do with the oppressive constraints of money taken under a constitutional regime. Next, the supporters of the federal health care law claim, in a letter to me, that the feds will take over implementation of the federal health insurance exchange if I don’t do it. Not true. So long as this court order is in place the federal government is barred from implementing the mandates and the provisions of that federal health care law. That claim is patently false in light of the court ruling. Can the decision be appealed by the federal government? Of course it can. However, at this time, the courts declaratory judgment that the federal health care law is unconstitutional is the law of the land as it applies to Alaska, and 26 other states, by the way. And we will not proceed down an unlawful course to implement it.

It’s difficult to know where to begin, so I’ll start with the most recent events first. Yesterday, the administration filed a motion asking Florida District Court Judge Roger Vinson to clarify the practical impact of his holding, effectively asking for a stay of his decision. “Defendants will appeal both the Court’s judgment and the rulings that underlie it,” the government wrote. “This motion respectfully asks the Court to clarify the scope of its order, in particular that its declaratory judgment does not relieve the parties to this case of any obligations or deny them any rights under the Affordable Care Act while the judgment is the subject of appellate review.” In his ruling, Vinson found that of the 26 states that took part in the lawsuit just two — Utah and Idaho — had standing to challenge the law. That means that the other 24, including Alaska, are on shaky ground if they decide to halt implementation.

From his comments, one would think that Parnell hasn’t applied for any federal dollars that were appropriated through the Affordable Care Act. But Alaska has asked for and received $2.9 million from the ACA. That includes: Medicare improvements for patients and providers, epidemiology labs, strengthening public health infrastructure to improve health outcomes, the maternal and child home visitation program, background checks for long-term care providers, workforce development, and HIV Prevention and Public Health Fund activities. Why those dollars don’t fit under the description of “oppressive constraints of money ” is unclear, as is the question of why Parnell thinks that it is worse to be broke than to receive an enormous pool of money that you are not allowed to spend in frivolous ways.

His claim that the federal government won’t be able to implement a federal exchange is also misguided. As the law states, if a state “will not have any required Exchange operational by January 1, 2014,” “the Secretary shall (directly or through agreement with a not- for-profit entity) establish and operate such Exchange within the State and the Secretary shall take such actions as are necessary to implement such other requirements.” Of course, if a formal stay is granted, then the government can proceed implementing this portion of the law.

The Associated Press is reporting that Alaska Governor Sean Parnell (R) — who is the only governor not to apply for a federal Health Insurance Exchange Planning Grant, which funds the preparations for an online exchange — will not enact the federal health care overhaul “after a judge in Florida struck down the law as unconstitutional“:

Parnell, who sought the advice of his attorney general amid concerns implementing the law would violate his oath of office, told the Juneau Chamber of Commerce the state would pursue lawful, market-based solutions to making insurance affordable and accessible to Alaskans.

He said the Florida judge’s ruling is the law of the land, as it pertains to Alaska, barring implementation of the federal law here. He said the state will pursue options of its own instead.

Failing to implement the law or establish an exchange would require the federal government to step in and offer Alaskans coverage through a federal-based insurance exchange. Funding for a federal exchange — which will cost $235.9 million — is part of the administration’s FY 2012 budget request.

Parnell is the only anti-reform governor who is using his opposition to the Affordable Care Act to prevent his state from applying for federal grants to help regulators police unreasonable insurance health premiums, plan for the exchanges, and most other grants (Alaskan businesses and seniors are taking advantage of the law, however). A number of the other 25 states that are part of the multi-state challenge have sent back a portion of the federal grants, but all have accepted a far greater portion of the early benefits of reform.

Alaska, meanwhile, is suffering from a fairly severe health care crisis and would stand to benefit from the aforementioned grants to employers and regulators. Nineteen percent of Alaskans and 12 percent of children are without insurance coverage and the state’s health care costs tend to grow faster than the national average.

Following Judge Roger Vinson’s ruling against the Affordable Care Act, Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell (R) has “asked his attorney general to advise him on whether implementing and enforcing the federal health care overhaul would put Parnell in violation of his oath of office,” toeing a line several conservatives have advanced in the wake of Monday’s ruling:

Parnell told reporters that he took an oath to support and defend the constitutions of the United States and Alaska. While the Republican governor concedes the issue is expected to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, he said he has a duty to uphold the law and wants Attorney General John J. Burns to advise on what that duty is after the Florida ruling.

“I’m caught between a federal government that says, ‘You must pursue this, you must pursue this,’ and I have the duty to uphold the rule of law,” he said. [...]

Before the judge’s ruling, Parnell said he didn’t “out of hand” reject all provisions of the law. He said he had pledged to review each aspect and deadline individually.

But he said he did not pursue “anything” related to the individual insurance mandate, which he said would have undermined the state’s position in the lawsuit and his belief that the provision is unconstitutional.

“And now, of course, the judge has said that that individual mandate is so closely tied with almost every provision,” he said. “So, again, I’m asking, I need some clarification on what the effect of the lower court’s ruling is.”

It’s surprising to see Parnell cower to the ruling of a single, unelected, district judge from the main land, but then again, the entire Republican response to Monday’s verdict has been designed to magnify and dramatize the importance of Vinson’s decision. Begin acting as if the ruling has any real legal consequences for the implementation of the law and you’ll convince the public that the question of constitutionality has been all but settled. It’s all about shifting perceptions.

But the problem for states like Alaska and Florida is that despite all their political posturing, this is a single district court decision that is in direct conflict with two other district court rulings upholding the constitutionality of the law. Vinson did not issue an injunction against implementation and found that just two state — Utah and Idaho — had any standing to challenge the law. Dismissing these facts may play well politically, but practically it’s slowing down the implementation process and hampering state flexibility (since their refusal to implement the measure will cause the federal government to intervene).

Besides Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN), Alaska’s Sean Parnell is the only governor who is using his opposition to the Affordable Care Act to prevent his state from applying for federal grants to fund employer retirement health plans, help regulators police unreasonable insurance health premiums and plan for the exchanges. Asked to defend his resistance to accepting federal funds for reform’s most popular programs during last night’s final gubernatorial debate, Parnell — who has joined the Florida-led lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of reform — claimed that he would refuse all federal funding until the lawsuit was settled:

MODERATOR: Governor Parnell, mentioning the health care lawsuit, Democrats have accused you of footdragging in implementing some of the more popular provisions for state employees. Senator Hollis French says you’re delaying as long as legally possible provisions like getting kids staying on their parents’ health care plans until age 26 and there are Democrats who are upset you are not offering the health care benefits to state employees. States aren’t required to do that, but some are, it’s an option. Do they have some validity in saying you’re holding back? [...]

PARNELL: When I’m accused of foot dragging what I’m doing is taking each deadline in the federal legislation on a case by case basis. For example, when the federal government says here is some money to set up a health insurance exchange, but you don’t have to do it until 2014, but you ought start doing it now and here is the money if you want to try a little bit. I said no because let’s finish this lawsuit and see if the individual mandate gets overturned. That will directly bare on the health insurance exchanges and we got three years more, four years more until we’ve got to buy into a system that right now, I don’t buy.

Listen:

Interestingly, Parnell is the odd man out of the 21 other states that are part of Florida’s health care lawsuit and is offering an odd argument for why he’s refusing federal dollars for programs that have noting to do with the individual requirement. Every other state has accepted some of the early benefits of reform. In fact, even Pawlenty — who has gone out of his way to condemn the law — applied for funds to implement abstinence-only education programs and several other grants. Alaska, meanwhile, is suffering from a fairly severe health care crisis and would stand to benefit from the aforementioned grants to employers and regulators. Nineteen percent of Alaskans and 12 percent of children are without insurance coverage and the state’s health care costs tend to grow faster than the national average.

During a more lighthearted moment in the debate, Parnell was asked how old the earth was. He refused to answer, replying simply, “only God knows.” “I really don’t know. I mean, for either one of us to do it, would be quite speculative.” You can watch that exchange here.